Be Wary When the World Says, "There Are No Sexual Sins But Child Abuse and Rape"

When the UN, or even the whole World, maintains that there is no sexual
sin but child abuse, be sure that the World is just years away from
condoning child abuse. If child abuse is the only remaining sexual sin a
person can commit, then we should be certain that even widespread
opposition to child abuse hangs by an incredibly loose thread.

Why do I say this? I say this simply because the terms of reference for
the sexual morality of the age are grounded in nothing objective at all
but natural revulsion against a minority who abuse children. Widespread
revulsion at child abusers and abuse is understandable and natural, but for how long will it last? For the time being, at least, we can all agree
that child abuse is a monstrous evil against the innocent child. What
we cannot all agree with is the premise that this is the only
sex-related evil a person can commit. Some reading this would balk at
the suggestion that child abuse could become accepted in the West, but
there is no real reason why it should not be. I say this for good
reason.

The rejection of both natural and divine law

The vast array of sexual sins and vices that were once deemed to be
'taboo' in the West have systematically and overwhelmingly been
overturned, leaving the World with such a blunted view of sexual ethics
proposing that personal autonomy in sexual relationships is paramount
and to be cherished. Any criticism of sexual behaviour that deviates
from what was once the accepted norm - a monogamous sexual
relationship within the confines of marriage - is now quickly dismissed
as evidence of 'bigotry' - or a form of imposition of an alien,
repressive morality to the majority. This is based in a wholesale,
widespread rejection of both natural and divine law supported by the
mass media and now even accepted in most schools.

As Western countries, we are deceived if we believe that the rejection
of both natural and divine law by adults has no consequences for
children. Notwithstanding that a culture that defines the limits of
sexual morality to the subjective is in danger of becoming so permissive
that children can more easily be brought into the realm of sexual
excitement for adults, the single premise upon which rests the West's
opposition to child abuse would appear to be the issue of 'consent'.
Rape is deemed, rightly, to be an offense to the compliance of a party
to a sexual encounter. Likewise, it is universally held in the West that
child abuse is an evil because a child can never give 'consent' to an
abusive sexual relationship in which the victim is weaker. The child,
obviously, is in a position of vulnerabillity compared to the aggressor.

The Age of Consent

Yet, 'consent' is a particularly tenuous and precarious foundation upon
which to build any society's sexual morality. Do we really wish to see,
for the future generations, among whom are billions of children, a
society so sexually liberal and so highly sexualised that any sexual
relationship is perceived to be normal except any sexual relationship
that does not involve consensual sex?

Consent has become the primary issue in recent times in the UK,
with some adult 'campaigners', among whose number is the 'gay-rights
campaigner' Peter Tatchell, calling for a lowering of the age of consent
in Britain to 14. The State has become so all-pervasive in society that
those who seek to change transform society through law cite evidence of
underage sexual activity taking place among a highly sexualised youth
as propaganda material for new laws recognising the 'sexual rights' of
children. We live in an age - a new age - in which sexual relationships
are framed in the language of personal and autonomous rights and
'freedoms'.

Comments

unfortunately, this will probably happen. we already have children exposed to scenarios via the internet that would rightly shock a right thinking adult not so long ago. we are sacrficing our children to Moloch in more ways than one. this is not the dialogue of a Christian or even post-christian society. this is the stuff of a triumphant philosophical satanism. more euphemistically called the enforcement of secular beliefs.

I remember the HFEA (Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority) talking about the "yuk factor" as being the only real objection to whatever new step towards a Brave New World they were taking. The idea is that one can overcome the yuk factor with a bit of practice. It is the yuk factor that alone prevents child abuse.

"Consent" is, as you say, a tenuous area. If a child is deemed not to be able to consent to say a necessary surgical operation then someone can exercise that consent on their behalf. Already the Belgians are proposing the legalisation of the murder of children. Will they be deemed to have consented or will some other person do it on their behalf? One could see the same happening with paedophilia.

Why should a child be discouraged from rotting his teeth with boiled sweets if he finds them enjoyable? Why should he be stopped from being used for a sexual purpose if he appears to enjoy it?

No one is saying that there are no sexual sins except child abuse, but the point is that sexual abuse of children is a CRIME. Homosexuality (among consenting adults in private) is not. Your thinking is confused!

Sodomy is a natural crime and was recognised as such by most jurisdictions until all natural morality was rejected. No one commits rape or molests a child until they've first denied sexual morality and engaged in various sexual sins, getting more and more evil the greater sin they commit. Same with abortion. These are not starter sins, they are developments in sinfulness and rejection of God. These evil crimes do not just happen in a vacuum. Destruction of sexual and all morality leads inexorably to them.

The liberal-left are trying to reverse engineer Dostoyevsky's equation that "if there is no God, everything is permitted".

They've failed to eradicate God on either their own or anybody else's terms, so now they're trying to bring to fruition the second part of that formulation, namely a culture where there are no taboos, where "everything is permitted". Child-adult sexual relations is a lynch-pin of that plan. It will happen, if those in a position to stop it do nothing.

For some reason I can't stop thinking about those certain Catholic dioceses who've allowed Stonewall into their classrooms. It sometimes feels like the battle has already been lost...

The highly respected Gudrun Kugler informs us that consent is NOT required of the child about to be killed under the new Belgian law. Instead:

"In this new law, the decision to kill a child must be approved by the parents and the physicians in care. It is further necessary that the young patient is aware of the situation and understands what euthanasia means."

Can one imaging anything more terrifying for the child? He has to be aware that he is about to be killed by his parents and a physician. If he does not agree with what is about to happen would it not be kinder to ensure that he is not aware? This is mad and bad.

Popular Posts

I expect that Benedict XVI reigned as Pope for a great deal longer than his official tenure from 2005 - 2013 would suggest. Back in the day when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was seen as really very important indeed (has anybody heard anything from Archbishop Ladaria recently or has he gone on an extended holiday?) the then Cardinal Ratzinger was Pope John Paul II's right-hand man and right-hand men are significant. As John Paul II's illness deepened in the 1990s and his ability to govern effectively became limited, I expect that the competences Joseph Ratzinger took on became more papal. Perhaps his experiences under John Paul II even gave the then Cardinal Ratzinger his novel and hugely problematic idea of a bifurcated papacy with an active and contemplative ministry.

St John Paul II still today has his critics in traditional circles, Koran-kissing, Assisi gathering Popes do somewhat give the impression of a tarnished papacy, but at no stage in either Bened…

PLEASE NOTE:THE POPE FRANCIS LITTLE BOOK OF INSULTS CAN NOW BE READ AT ITS OWN WEBSITE:

THE POPE FRANCIS LITTLE BOOK OF INSULTS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THE FULL, UPDATED POPE FRANCIS LITTLE BOOK OF INSULTS IS NOW AT A NEW WEBSITE HERE _________________________________________________________________________"Old maid!"

All of this is profoundly and wildly speculative, of course, but I suppose that option c) for Pope Francis in the event of some kind of process that resulted in a trial to ascertain his ability to hold Office would be simply to declare that he does not recognise the authority of those who place him on trial followed by some kind of excommunication for those who tried to do so. Meanwhile, Fr Antonio Spadaro and Fr James Martin S.J could tweet about how this was like the arrest and trial of Our Lord Jesus Christ. One can just see the narrative unfolding. 'The Trial of Pope Francis'. That would make for an interesting play at the National Theatre. If not answering the dubia is seen by Francis as his way of showing respect for due process, perhaps he wouldn't even turn up for his own trial. The imagination runs riot. Perhaps I really should give it up for Lent.

I suppose that with the general upending of justice and law that is a motif of this papacy, the trial of Cardinal Bu…